It's worthwhile to notice, in looking back through the "leftie" posts in this thread that there is no specific mention of any one actually being harmed by the implementation of The Patriot Act, no names, no events, no court actions, no criminal charges, not even a denial of a request to the FISA court. But there is a hell of a lot of posturing and rhetoric, e.g. "erode the 4th Amendment", "Trample the Constitution", "Warrantless fishing expeditions" and best of all, "Breach of Liberty and Public Trust".

There are two problems with McBare and GS in this thread: failure to realize that the Dems themselves are on "warrantless fishing trips". The subpoenas of Miers and Bolton were attempts to put them on display for the "offensive" firing of some federal attorneys for which there is no evidence of wrongdoing. They are hoping to catch someone in a lie. Just like happened to Scooter Libby.

Regarding the telecommunications companies cooperating with the intel agencies on wiretapping, none of them are charged with wrongdoing (a crime). They are being sued civilly by aggressive lawyers and the Dems have openly said they want the suits to go on so they can learn what happened--see, another fishing trip. There is a difference between a crime and a tort, but the Dems always operate the same way. It's the seriousness of the charge, not the evidence of harm, that demands their investigation.

If there was no wrong-doing, then there is no need whatsoever for "retroactive immunity", isn't that right? Another problem solved in BWOT.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon

People calling from out of the country are covered under the 4th?
That's WHO!!!!!

It is the people in the country that you seem to be forgetting.

And also note that the warrantless wiretap issue goes well beyond just the international calls, how they justify if the person is "believed" to be outside the US, etc.

You might want to take a peak at S 2248 which is the FISA Amendments Act of 2007

Here is a little tidbit.
(3) In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 168 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest.

Google and enjoy.

McBear, Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.

If there was no wrong-doing, then there is no need whatsoever for "retroactive immunity", isn't that right? Another problem solved in BWOT.

As even you should know, there are already dozens--maybe hundreds--of nuisance civil law suits against the US companies which will cost them millions (billions?) before they can all be resolved--which is not a good way to get them to cooperate w/ the US NSA agencies.

BTW: It's "If there were no wrongdoing" not "If there was no wrongdoing..."

As even you should know, there are already dozens--maybe hundreds--of nuisance civil law suits against the US companies which will cost them millions (billions?) before they can all be resolved--which is not a good way to get them to cooperate w/ the US NSA agencies.

BTW: It's "If there were no wrongdoing" not "If there was no wrongdoing..."

Wrongdoing is a singular noun. It is "was". I think you were going for "If there were no wrongdoings..."

On a more serious note, suing to protect privacy is not a nuisance suit. As an example, if IBM were to, on February 5, 2007 manage to lose all my employee data [and that of 900 others] and fail to advise me of that situation so I could take measures to protect my ID, credit and any other circumstance, it would not be considered a nuisance suit to reach out and smack them for negligence in the caretaking of my personal data.

Suing the telcos for similar malpractice is, likewise not a nuisance suit. It is the only way a person has to protect their rights against a Corporation. Apparently they frown on one just going to Corporate Headquarters and kicking the shit out of the CIO.

McBear, Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.

As even you should know, there are already dozens--maybe hundreds--of nuisance civil law suits against the US companies which will cost them millions (billions?) before they can all be resolved--which is not a good way to get them to cooperate w/ the US NSA agencies.

BTW: It's "If there were no wrongdoing" not "If there was no wrongdoing..."

"The President has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA. But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retroactive immunity. No immunity, no FISA bill. So if we take the President at his word, he's willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies." -- Ted Kennedy

IOW, you find the president's position in regard to sacrificing American lives to protect the phone companies perfectly reasonable...

Alrighty then.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon